About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
of course its friend, china is on the security council and has blocked those kind of actions in the past, jenna. jenna: interesting that you mentioned china. is there any indication that the north koreans had help from the outside? any sort of outside country with this launch? >> reporter: well there is no evidence per se but it is widely known that the north koreans could not get the parts for their ballistic missile program without having those parts flown through china, bypassed through china. there also have been reports on the voice of america that an iranian team of scientists have been seen recently, in recent days in north korea. so there is questions about the relationship between, and any help that may have been provided to the north koreans by the iranians. clearly the north koreans are very proud of this long range ballistic missile launch. the one in april failed miserably. and for the first time then they admitted that it did fail publicly. this time they extended the window and did not invite foreign journalists to watch this and simply announced when it was successful. th
the bank of china to finance whatever part of the grant that was given to a123 batteries, we still have to pay that back. the taxpayers are still on the hook for baying back the deaf -- paying back the deficit-spending portion of that money even though it's now long, long gone. megyn: so we borrowed from china so that we could offer stimulus. we gave part of the stimulus to a123. a123 spent $100 million plus of the money, failed to succeed, and now that, those assets are going to china too. >> well, when you say it that way, megyn, you make it sound like it's not very much fun, i mean, my gosh. [laughter] megyn: china makes out well in this deal. i don't know about the american taxpayer though. >> they're doing pretty well in all of this. and the problem for the president today is his whole idea is i'm going to go to detroit and talk about how my economic strategy is working and that what we need to do is increase taxes on the top earners so that we can take that money and stimulate the economy. and as he says, invest in the middle class. and as he says, keep the tax rates down for thos
. the only culprit that i can think of is china because china has supplied technology to north korea's missile program in the past. we saw that on april 15th where the missile launchers they came from china. they were paraded in pongyang. they sold the missile launchers, probably sold the missiles and sold the same launchers and missiles to pakistan. we shouldn't be surprised china is there. melissa: speaking of money, you brought that up, north korea spent $3.2 billion over 14 years on weapons. annual per capita salary in the country is $2,000. you know, i mean it's a tough comparison. why is this meaningful to us though, that they have achieved this? >> well, because within a year, maybe 18 months, they will be able to put a nuclear warhead on a long-range missile and send it to the united states. we really have no defenses for that. once it is in the air it is very hard for us to shoot it down. which means we don't have that much time to stop the north korean missile program. this is unstable regime after all. this is not like the soviet union, a status quo power. this is country
a satellite into orbit. its neighbors are unnerved. even china expressed regret at the move. the obama administration condemned it as a provocative act and will likely ask the u.n. security council to impose crippling sanctions. the pentagon following developments this morning. chris lawrence there. what do you know, chris? >> right now, officials say that object that north korea put into orbit, monitoring it, analyzing it, but they confirm it is in orbit. why is that important? the same technology you would use to put into orbit is the same technology you use to develop long-range ballistic missiles, the u.s. condemned this act. they are worried about the marriage of north korea's nuclear weapons with this long-range missile technology. this is the type of missile that if it was successful, as it appears to be, could reach parts of the united states, alaska, u.s. military bases in hawaii. but a u.s. efficiently i spoke with who used to work on north north korea for the defense department told me, there are still areas in which north korea has not made it as far as they would need to i
it over the last 8 years is to take out a credit card from the bank of china in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion from the first 42 presidents, number 43 ed a $4 trillion by his lonesome so we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we're going to have to pay back. $30,000 for every man, woman and child. that's irresponsible. it's unpatriotic. >> so, unpatriotic. >> the hypocrite in chief says in 2008 that 5 from is unpatriotic but now we're up to $16.4 trillion. that's okay. by the way we move my credit card limits. he doesn't want a debt ceiling going forward. >> debt ceiling no more can congress deal when the president says we're going to raise the debt ceiling. no squabbles back and forth. >> let me get this straight. borrow $4.8 billion a day and now we're coming to the edge ever the fiscal cliff. republicans are saying hey, let's continue the bush tax cuts, let's make this fair for everyone but let's stop spending. we are spending more than we have. democrats are saying now they are saying it doesn't matter, we are not focused on the deficit any
transportation. i'm concerned about education. i'm concerned about cutting in all of these areas that make china -- give china a bigger advantage as we move forward that give our global competitors a bigger advantage. that's what really concerns me. >> two quick observations. if you're in business and you're told we've got to make changes at our budget and you look at 6%, 15% of your budget, 9% of your budget, you've got to make cuts, you look at the 60% first and say where can we make manufacture she's cuts. talk about not endangering our ability to compete and win going forward, you don't want to cut those areas as steve has talked about eloquently many times, there are advantages which means you have to look at entitlements. and i think to michael's point, i think there's credit to that. two, i like the fact that boehner now is in a stronger position with his caucus because if indeed they find a deal, that means he can win a majority of his people over. i like the fact that nancy pelosi's in a strong position with her caucus. so the pieces are not only coming together substantively, they're c
is the economic power house already now and in the future. you have china militarizing in that region, north korea and so much commerce, money, and trade that everyone depends on now in asia. to have the militarization of the region by two such uncertain countries with uncertain tensions it is a chilling affect on the world economy. first the u.s., the national security concern about what north korea mooib might do. the deeper, broader, long-term concern about economics and trade in the region, but for them to achieve this kind of success with a long-range missile launch, that means combined with their nuclear program, by the way, of course means the concern now full tilt that they have the capability for an intercontinental ballistic missile launch, potentially in the future with a nuclear warhead and that could put hawaii, alaska and the west coast of the united states one day at risk. >> victor cha, when the government says at no time was the missile or the debris a threat to america. is it a matter of time before kim jong-un is a threat to america. >> it is only a matter of time and the time i
to be the ultimate range. 5,000 to 6,000 kilometers. 3,700 miles. china to the west here. in japan well within range of north korea were to be successful in developing this launch mechanism. here is hawaii. that's outside the range of the 6,000 kilometers. the question then begs how realistic is it that north korea would be a threat to the united states? >> through pro live raig they could be a threat to the united states. and if they were to hit our allies in the near range. in the south and also japan. those are the near-term risks. but proliferation could occur at any time. they were able to reach to hawaii ... bill: history shows they are not very good at this. are they getting better? >> only more tests will tell. you are correct history has shown it's been embarrassing for them. you would have to ask if you were rational why would you take a high-risk test like this with so many eyes watching? bill: you mentioned the obama administration. how are they reacting? was is our response? >> our response tends to look first to the yate united nation. there is talk of proportional sanctions being cons
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)